The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them.

Because those elements aren't the Godhead or the community or the links between, just administrative or philosophical ideas, or rites.

Both Abraham, Moses, and Jesus adopted preexisting priesthoods and rituals, the religion Jesus adopted from is the Mandaeans, still around (down to just 9 priests though). That's the religion of John the Baptist. Quite pagan. It was never a central expectation that out rites, ritual, and ideas come directly from God, we tended to be rather pragmatic about these things, abd kept the elements of priestcraft separate from actual faith. That's where The Dark Night of the Soul conceptions have a lot of legitimacy in the faith.

It's also a issue on the part of modern atheists and neo-pagans, not to mention some uneducated Christians, that Paganism in the ancient world simply isn't well understood. The line between Christianity and Pagan practices wasn't nearly as dualistic then as we like to insist now, and there wasn't as much hostility. I've seen many fools write absurd things, some with degrees, that obviously contradict written sources.

Christians never would (save for a few pro til Nietzsche an groups in Asia minor) sacrifice for another God or man, renounce God, denounce other Christians, worship another God, etc.... unless under extreme duress, and even then, doubtful. But the vast majority either we're converts or lived in communities recently converted, willingly. You don't automatically lose your holidays, a Jew converting to Christianity is fully right and even expected to continue practicing Hannukah, because that's his cultural origin. It isn't expected someone else of nonjewish origins to break that tradition out. You obviously couldn't keep the practice of a holiday to Kali, by sacrificing someone to Kali.... but if there was a dance or ritual attached, and was causing extreme confusion in converts, a Christian priesthood is unlikely to abandon it, just modify it yo make it palitable.

Most of our practices in this respect are a maze of older practices. Doesn't mean like some modern people would say that were really worshiping so and so, just we entered into the arrangement with eyes wide open, pragmatic.

The church, every ancient church, be it a Catholic or orthodox rite, has a exacting way to do it, and even the orthodox like the Greeks who only keep one rite, one monastic rule, change it on occasion, it certainly does mutate era from ere, especially whenever they try to restore authentic orthodox practices, or far separated traditions presumed to be identical bump into one another and they discovered it somehow changed a bit over time. They have had schisms over the tiniest, meaningless things, like Calendars and the crook of the finger or how you do the cross, etc, wear shoes or not behind the altar. It shows how extreme the late Roman Empire took to trying to standardize practices, and it never quite worked out. In the west, we remained a little looser, given proportionally we tended to still of been converting more and more, and didn't have a central emperor after the schism guiding practices in the church.

I do need to point out we had other sort of rules that moderns don't think much of, like only bishops, not priests, could preach. A liturgy was highly standardized, wasn't preaching. The authority to preach cane straight from bishops, because while giving wide allowances to ideas not of Christian origin, they didn't want someone not of the apostolic tradition (all legitimate priests are) or not well educated or taught (not all apostolic priests unfortunately are, we do much better in modern times). You never know how the dialectic would unfold, someone might ask a priest a question, it would lead to a innocent mistake, then 50 years later a Bishop comes around, discovers the local religion mutated into something alien to Christianity. Likewise, a Bishop could choose a non-priest to preach, it could and often is a woman. They can't be made priests, do his functions, but if you have a woman who did go to a seminary, had the same degree as a male priest, was effectively a rabbi, it is easy enough to get her permission to deliver the homily. I could do it, theoretically most of you could.... but none of us would be the priest, we couldn't take confession, we wouldn't do funerals, etc.

You'll find Stoic terms mentioned in the New Testament, some of the rites were assimilated out of mithraic practices, etc. These aren't really of concern. Your asserting alien demands of purity on Christianity, when we always were a organic outgrowth of local spiritual practices merging with the Jewish Godhead. Protestant tried to purify the religion, failed miserably, still quite traceable back to pagan elements and traditions. This isn't nearly the controversy in the ancient churches, we all kinda knew.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

The Mandaean texts may be authentic documentation of a group somehow or other ongoing with John's original circle or they may be mainly an inventive fabrication by a person writing much later. Maybe has no validity.

.......That's where The Dark Night of the Soul conceptions have a lot of legitimacy in the faith.

I do, and it like, has wiki pages and books, St. John of the Cross wroteva book on it, Mother Theresa was practically sainted over it.

Show me your a INTJ. Look up the Mandaeans a bit more, and this topic. I provided basic information, as I noted, I'm not a qualified theologian, and haven't been given permission to preach. I gotta submit my works to a Bishop for review, even if just a internet post, on topics like this, to explain in depth. Many Catholics don't bother anymore, but I'm highly conservative, knowing full well the history of the interrelation of philosophy to the church.

So look those works up. I explained above why I wouldn't go farther. I don't think your interested in conversion, if you were, I would suggest a local Catholic experienced in philosophy. What is left is just providing accurate information that isnt too theoretical or insightful.... I'm intelligent and insightful enough to acvidently explain the stuff too damn well, and don't want the headache of a international tribunal of bishops when I'm 70 analyzing the positions I've made, looking for mistakes or heresies because I've accidently started a movement. I've said it many time before, I'm not a Catholic philosopher, but a philosopher who happens to be Catholic. I don't push the theology that much, if you knew anything about our history you would know why. It's stricter in other churches, you can't even talk about Aristotle in the US branch of the Greek Orthodox Church, I'm walking anathema whenever I'm around them, so just shake my head no. That makes absolutely no sense to you, but if you understood the rivalry between the two churches, you would grasp why it's all weird. Has nothing to do with the faith per say, but control of the message, both sides had suffered nasty heresies that nearly destroyed the church, and my preference is to the continuation of the church. in the same manner Leto II was for the continuation of the Been Gesserite. It's essentially a very good institution, whatever it's administrative hiccups, and mankind is much better off with it than without it. It survives the collapse of nations and civilizations. I can pay the cost of holding my tongue on certain topics, in return for what good it does locallyband internationally. They may well become one of the few holders of any remains of my philosophies actually, excellent librarians. Everyone's fortunes are ultimately tied in them. Only a few institutes come close to paralleling aspects. Library of Congress can pull off it's book keeping, not it's ethical and lower political capacity, or international ability to coordinate political and medical help. Caliphates have died off, UN and WHO somewhat does that, yet still relies in large part on them.

Which do you think is gonna last longer? Do I really want to piss them off in this regard, even accidently? They will he with us till the end of days, it will outlast anything else we can conceive. I have no intention of breaking this essential rule.

That's not the religion. That's not Jesus, that's not Moses, that's not the faith, but it is something I have profound respect for. Where do you think our posts will ultimately reside in 50,000 years? US, UN mainframe? It's gonna be in some Catholic database. I have equally less desire to upset them as bishops now. They are forever, till the last. Everything eventually must past through the church. That's the lesson of history, that's the trajectory we are still very much on.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

I do, and it like, has wiki pages and books, St. John of the Cross wroteva book on it, Mother Theresa was practically sainted over it.

Which brings to mind a video and commentary on Mother Theresa by Christopher Hitchens, which I watched a couple of years ago. I will leave this for you to watch in the interim period as I have run out of time to contemplate my answer to the remainder of your post, which I will endeavour to do so later on.

For the remainder of my post, the regulations have been around longer than the English language has. Consider that before dismissing it or demanding explanation, it's built into how states deal with priority of communication, who can say what. That came out of the Catholic-Orthodox tradition.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

If in my own ontology, I state that 2+2=4, it is not because I am "borrowing from someone else", but because by my own deduction and design, 2+2=4, regardless of what anyone else had ever said or done.

Every great mountain has much greatness within. One can hardly form a vast religion void of any repetition of former vast religion's concerns. Just try to form a new science but not use mathematics, logic, or any current scientific principles. Such would be utter nonsense.

The fact that all religions have many things in common is merely testimony that there are many things that reality requires of everyone, regardless of heritage. And frankly, that is very largely what Catholicism is about.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

No. Catholicism includes philosophies that aren't very deductive, in fact is about as antheyical to deductive and comparitive reason as one can get, more radical than Buddhism gets.

People outside of the religion really don't get that the religion might share a ethics, but not necessarily a larger philosophy outside of this. It's a very massive religion, it be like combining the Sunni and Shia sects together within Islam under one caliph, then every other minor sect, ancient and minor, who are sharply opposed to one another, and letting things be.

On thus site I've seen people attack me thinking I was a Franciscan or Jesuit, it doesn't work like that. I'm not obligated to join any order, can start a new one in fact, or just be quiet. We have purely ontologically oriented Catholics, others focused on purely faith, pure science, etc. It's massive, we even have a few kinds of odd atheists, such a near Marxist liberation theologians or whatever George Satanaya was doing (see this as a phase in Erik's future). I try to just be more secular traditional, Roman Era, with emphasis on ethics. Member of the Cult of Boethius, and try not to interfere at all with the unity of the churches, so am careful to to upset or offend the orthodox or eastern orthodox.

James isn't without a place, in his statement, but it is much more than that as well. You might not find much commonality between two Catholic philosophers as you would expect. One would say turn the other cheek, and another would roll their eyes and say punch back. We're not a new religion, we've been around a few thousand years, lots of competing schools of thought. We're united in Christ. Can't say we're united on a whole lot else, anyone studying the history of philosophy during Catholic eras would quickly grasp that.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

The Catholic establishment wrestles with the same problem every established religion has to deal with. How to make the secret mysteries of faith intelligible to the masses, if in fact that was the intent of the founder of the particular religion.

The average Catholic could not conceive of a Vatican where, according to the memoirs of a recently passed away excorcist , Satanic rituals take place, because the average Catholic cannot comprehend the magnitude and the power of an unplacated Evil.

About the early roots of the Roman Catholic church and its early development (of taking in pagan customs and incorporating them; taking in foreign religion's dogmas and incorporating them): In religious studies, they call the splintering of old, and springing to life new religions "schizms". The same process can be viewed from a systems point of view. Systems was a budding and promising discipline of thought in the seventies. One of the tenets or discoveries of Systems was that systems, successful systems, never start out on their own; new systems are only viable if they grow out of old, established systems.

This is a hindsightful description of religions' schizms.

Nobody talks about Systems any more, but it had a schizm, giving life to System's splinter as its sister discipline, Chaos Theory. CT is still talked about.

Christianity was a splinter religion off of Judaism, and it incorporated many new elements, hardly any of which were brand new. "There is nothing new under the sun", as the Torah aptly found out, and the scriptures (of Jews, and the scriptures of Christians, as well as of Muslims, Hindus, Greek gods, etc.) recursively applied the very saying to its own origin.

A Shieldmaiden wrote:The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but .

Why RC is referred to as if it were a human female, or a biological mammarian female?

The church is IT. It is a neutral gender entity, not a female entity.

Ships and nations are seldom referenced in the feminine gender any more. But religion? It has never been referenced as a lady. No, sir.

Turd Ferguson wrote:Yeah, I really wouldn't take that case of money laundering through the back door of the Vatican banking system as a "Satanic Ritual".

Turd, I ain't kidding: I must find you the source, however I have only a few minutes here and there to post, and now going to a festival called 'Sinolog'to celebrate the Infant Jesus. Biggest festival here.Please realize by now I am on the level as far as references are concerned.

No Jerkey. Not since the snake cult or the cult of mithras who occupied the location prior in pagan times, has this been the case. The Vatican isn't 100% Catholic, it also has a Greek Orthodox Priest stationed inside a Greek Chapel there via treaty (only Treaty with the Byzantine Empire still in force today), I assure you, any satanic rites even hinted at would of been announced by the Greek Patriarch instantly. Absolutely no doubt about this.

Your talking absolute bullshit.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

Exorcism is just a reading of the baptismal rights. Vast majority of the US has had a exorcism without knowing it, that's all it is. No women crawling walls shooting peas out of their mouths. It's the most extremely overrated rite we have, people don't grasp that's all you do, and you don't even need to be a priest to baptize someone in any of the ancient churches. I can do a exorcism in under 5 minutes. If you want the theatrics of a full immersion in water, your gonna get wet.

For a lot of people, this is enough to solve psychological neurosis by removing stress, guilt, memories. Best if a priest does it cause he is a authority figure, makes for a stronger subjective connection on the person being baptized.

I don't grasp the theology beyond that, but do readily acknowledge the expediency of the simple rite central to Christianity. It's just a extra baptism, it either works or doesn't as in the placebo effect from a strictly emperical standpoint. Nothing inherently satanic about it, nothing too special, every priest is trained to baptize, so doesn't involve much intellectual arguments. It works, or it doesn't, and costs next to nothing to try. It's one of those arts most applauded in religion, as it can be highly effective psychologically, and causes no obvious danger in and if itself. Just recommend not relying on that alone.

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

Turd Ferguson wrote:Exorcism is just a reading of the baptismal rights. Vast majority of the US has had a exorcism without knowing it, that's all it is. No women crawling walls shooting peas out of their mouths. It's the most extremely overrated rite we have, people don't grasp that's all you do, and you don't even need to be a priest to baptize someone in any of the ancient churches. I can do a exorcism in under 5 minutes. If you want the theatrics of a full immersion in water, your gonna get wet.

For a lot of people, this is enough to solve psychological neurosis by removing stress, guilt, memories. Best if a priest does it cause he is a authority figure, makes for a stronger subjective connection on the person being baptized.

I don't grasp the theology beyond that, but do readily acknowledge the expediency of the simple rite central to Christianity. It's just a extra baptism, it either works or doesn't as in the placebo effect from a strictly emperical standpoint. Nothing inherently satanic about it, nothing too special, every priest is trained to baptize, so doesn't involve much intellectual arguments. It works, or it doesn't, and costs next to nothing to try. It's one of those arts most applauded in religion, as it can be highly effective psychologically, and causes no obvious danger in and if itself. Just recommend not relying on that alone.

A Baptism is more than you think it is.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..